[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9316: Unify folder implementations
#9316: Unify folder implementations +--- Reporter: smcmahon|Owner: witsch Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: n/a |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Old description: ,,Copied from [http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/191/ PLIP #191] in the roadmap:,, = Unify folder implementations = ''We currently have Folder and Large Plone Folder implementations. [[br]] There should be only one.'' Proposed by:: Martin Aspeli Seconded by:: Andreas Zeidler Proposal type:: Architecture Repository branch:: [browser:plone.folder], [browser:plone.app.folder] == Motivation == Shipping with two folder types is unnecessary for several reasons: - It forces the user to make an a-priori choice about the number of objects they plan to put into a folder - We ship with the Large type disabled by default to avoid UI confusion - We don't have a proper search-based UI for large folders anyway Also the standard Folder type stores attributes, and has a single list _objects tuple which keeps the list of objects and order. This is prone to ConflictErrors and is slower. In simple benchmarks, a BTree-based folder performs orders of magnitude faster than a basic folder. == Proposal == Have a single folder implementation. - The internal storage is BTrees - It still supports ordering, by storing a separate sort order list/tree - It has at least two views - one search-based for large folders, one batch-based for small folders. This is either just a display menu choice, or a choice in the object's schema. Explicit sorting may be turned off for large folders. == Implementation == The package `plone.folder` in the Plone SVN provides a base implementation of a folder base class, which is not Archetypes specific, based on BTreeFolder2, but adding ordering. The exact ordering implementation is left up to an adapter, with a default providing explicit ordering. This allows other implementations, such as auto- sorting based on some key. The diagram below shows the folderish base- and mix-in classes used in OFS, CMF, Archetypes and Plone. Count 'em: [[Image(http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/191/Folder%20mess.png)]] The new base class from `plone.folder`, i.e. `OrderedBTreeFolderBase`, is used by `plone.app.folder` to provide two folderish classes, one targeted to `Archetypes` (`BaseBTreeFolder`) as well as one for `ATContentTypes` (`ATFolder`). Both add relatively little extra code and setup in order to make them fully compatible with the original, to be replaced classes. The package also provides a `GenericSetup` profile replacing the standard Folder content type with the new one. In-place migration will convert the internal data-structures when upgrading to use the new folders. Such migration code (including thorough tests) already exists in a project- specific package, and just needs to be moved into `plone.folder` itself. The migration runs relatively fast |---| in several performance tests about 13,000 folders holding some 200,000 items in total were migrated in about 5 minutes. .. |---| unicode:: U+2014 .. em dash The Container type in `plone.app.content` does not use BTrees, nor does it support ordering. Rather than changing this class and providing migration, we could add a new type, e.g. called `OrderedContainer` or just `Folder` (to signify closer resemblance to the standard folder behaviour) that mixes in the new class instead of `PortalFolder`. In addition, `plone.folder` also provides an ordering adapter, which only considers certain content to be orderable (implemented via marker interfaces). This allows for ordering of content that requires it, for example navigational items, without any added performance penalties if those share a folder with other, non-orderable content in large quantities. == Deliverables == - New folderish base classes that are BTree-based and support large content sets as well as ordering. - Improved `Products.ATContentTypes.content.ATFolder` and `Products.ATContentTypes.content.ATBTreeFolder` versions which use BTrees and supports ordering. - New class plone.app.content.container.Folder (?) that uses BTrees and supports ordering. - The ability to switch to a folder view/behaviour that's optimised for large content sets. - In-place Migration for all existing sites. == Risks == - There may be migration issues involved for derived folderish types with additional data-structures regarding containment and/or ordering. - This vision makes the existing `BaseBTreeFolder` in Archetypes orderable (though in some UI configurations you may not see the ordering, to prevent the user invoking
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #7822: Make standard file content types use ZODB BLOB support
#7822: Make standard file content types use ZODB BLOB support +--- Reporter: limi|Owner: witsch Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: major |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: focusarea | +--- Old description: == task description == * create an integration package for zodb blob support for plone * implement a new content type intended to be used to store binary data * provide a sub-type layer to allow this type to mimick the existing ATFile and ATImage types * provide migration tools to allow existing content to be converted to use zodb blobs * provide hooks for 3rd-party products to use a blob-aware AT-field and add additional sub-types and migrations * document the setup, migration as well as best practices of how to use the integration layer with custom types == deliverables == * an add-on package for plone 3.0/3.1 providing blob support for existing sites (incl. migration) * a core package intended to be shipped with plone 4.0 (or a release based on zope 2.11) * documentation for users, site integrators as well as developers, i.e. various howtos * perhaps also a wsgi layer helping to overcome the blocking problem due to the limited number of threads in the zope2 publisher == success would look like... == * lots of plone sites start using zodb blobs and migrate their existing content from standard AT types (or other blob solutions) * add-on packages adopt the sub-typing approach for their content types, e.g. the plone4artists suite * people start using alternative file-systems for their blob storages, e.g. amazon s3, linux drbd, coda, gfs etc * the confusion about the various existing other blob solutions and which of them to use vanishes and people are referring to zodb blob (and the above mentioned integration package) when they talk about blobs * the zope2 thread blocking issue has become a non-issue, since people are running repoze anyway... == current status == * the integration package is already half-way there — it is called [http://plone.org/products/plone.app.blob plone.app.blob] and lives in the plone [http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/plone.app.blob/ svn repository] * a [http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/6805 trac ticket] was abused as some sort of progress log and to discuss things — it contains a lot of technical details for the interested reader (but also a lot of redundancy :)) * the package provides a new content type that can be used as a drop- in replacement for ATFile * it also provides a migration path for existing ATFile content * a lot of people have helped with testing the package and it is already used in a few production sites * thanks to a generous sponsorship of headnet there's a working branch supporting plone 2.5 * thanks to the tireless efforts of enfoldsystems it also works on windows as of recently * several buildouts (based on ploneout and plone.recipe.plone) are provided * however, support for mimicking ATImage content is still missing == timeline == * next week will see a first beta release including some recent bugfixes * after that i'll start working on image support, which should be ready by the end of march * rc and 1.0 final releases in april i would be glad to hear your concerns, suggestions and questions about this. also testing the package and providing feedback would be of great value! and last but not least, if you'd like to participate in the development please contact me directly via email. cheers, andi New description: ,,Copied in part from [http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/154/ PLIP #154] in the roadmap:,, = Large file handling = ''It is possible to configure Zope to work with very large files, but the out-of-the-box story is not terribly great. It should be obvious how to configure Plone so that it can handle large volumes of MS Office, PDF or media files, for example.'' Proposed by:: Martin Aspeli Seconded by:: Martijn Pieters Proposal type:: Architecture Repository branch:: [browser:plone.app.blob], [browser:plone.app.imaging] == Motivation == In many ways, Plone is well-suited to document management and the management of files in general. Tools such as `ExternalEditor` and `Enfold Desktop` make this even more true. However, due to the way the ZODB works, large files can be problematic to work with — if you're not careful, your ZODB could balloon because each change to a file revisions the whole object. There are solutions to this problem, which usually involve storing some content outside the ZODB. However, the out-of-the-box story in Plone isn't good enough. It
[Framework-Team] PLIPs 7822 (blob support) and 9316 (unified folders) ready for review...
hi framework team, here's a heads-up regarding my PLIPs: #7822: Make standard file content types use ZODB BLOB support #9316: Unify folder implementations both PLIPs still need upgrades and fixes wrt plone 4.0, but are in a reviewable state nevertheless. or so i think. the main reason for this is that the packages behind these PLIPs — `plone.app.blob`(+`plone.app.imaging`) and `plone.folder` +`plone.app.folder` — were originally developed as add-ons for plone 3.x. all of them are in a near-finished state as such, and are (or will be as of wednesday) in production use. however, changes in the way the test setup works in zope 2.12 (the `custom_zodb.py` trick doesn't seem to be supported anymore) as well as a project deadline have so far prevented me from making the necessary fixes regarding plone 4.0. as the functionality provided will not change anymore, i think an initial review could already be conducted anyway. i've update the respective PLIP tickets to reflect the current state, and will add review notes as well as make the necessary fixes to let the tests pass again asap. iow, sorry about being late! i hope you will accept the state of the PLIP packages wrt plone 3.x as a good enough reason to consider reviewing them and allow me a few more days to catch up with the upgrades made for plone 4.0. regards, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.3rc5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9352: combination of search results plips
#9352: combination of search results plips --+- Reporter: laurenskling |Owner: elvix Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Unknown | Resolution: Keywords:| --+- Old description: This PLIP is a combination of the two accepted PLIP's about the search results page. Tickets #9271 and #9282 by Laurens Kling and Geir Baekholt. == Motivation == “Search-dominant” navigating is one of the three popular ways to reach goals on a website. Search isn't just useful for finding content, it's how many people navigate. The search of Plone could do better to help these people. Here are some small adjustments that could help out big time. (this PLIP is only about normal search, not advanced or live search). Plone uses search extensively. The search forms and results have, however, not been improved in a long time. There are several small steps that can be done to make the presentation of search results much more comfortable and practical to use. == Proposal == - Location (path/URL) One of the main things the search results are missing is the location of the item. If you archive old items in folders called 'archive', try searching that one archive folder you are looking for. Adding the location (URL) gives users feed forward about the item. Google has a nice url display in green. This one can possibly (depending on performance impact) be improved even further by listing the titles of containing folders rather than their path. - Relevance. I have never understood the relevance of showing the relevance. It just adds noise and doesn't help the user. Sorting by relevance helps, not printing the relevance. - Search only in current section. Plone gives the opportunity to search within current section, which sadly is gone on the new plone.org. When checked, the resultpage doesn't give any feedback that the results are only from the certain section. It also doesn't give the opportunity to search again within this section. Adding a simple line states “searched in section” and a checkbox to search within it again could solve this. - Sorting. The search results can't be sorted in any way at the moment. Sort by: relevance (i.e the default), date (newest first), alphabetically - easy-to-read dates: Last modified Nov 10, 2007 10:43 PM is painful to read. Last modified 2 weeks ago makes sense when you read results and is more scannable. - Left align the description with the title, so the results are less painful to read. == Deliverables == - A search results view that supports sorting - Updated ZPT and CSS for presenting the search results == Risks == Potential of small performance loss by looking up real names and folder paths. Search should stay as easy as possible. Adding checkboxes to (normal) search makes it bigger then “just type and press enter”. If the the checkbox is unchecked by default this is still a simple searchbar, so I do not see any problems. Sorting search results will make the page need adjustments, there has to come a good UI for it. == Progress == Prototyped in static HTML New description: This PLIP is a combination of the two accepted PLIP's about the search results page. Tickets #9271 and #9282 by Laurens Kling and Geir Baekholt. == Motivation == “Search-dominant” navigating is one of the three popular ways to reach goals on a website. Search isn't just useful for finding content, it's how many people navigate. The search of Plone could do better to help these people. Here are some small adjustments that could help out big time. (this PLIP is only about normal search, not advanced or live search). Plone uses search extensively. The search forms and results have, however, not been improved in a long time. There are several small steps that can be done to make the presentation of search results much more comfortable and practical to use. == Proposal == - Location (path/URL) One of the main things the search results are missing is the location of the item. If you archive old items in folders called 'archive', try searching that one archive folder you are looking for. Adding the location (URL) gives users feed forward about the item. Google has a nice url display in green. This one can possibly (depending on performance impact) be improved even further by listing the titles of containing folders rather than their path. - Relevance. I have never understood the relevance of showing the relevance. It just adds noise and doesn't help the user. Sorting by relevance helps, not printing the relevance. - Search only in current section. Plone gives the opportunity to search within current section, which sadly is gone on the new plone.org. When
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9327: unified interface for lists of content
#9327: unified interface for lists of content +--- Reporter: elvix |Owner: elvix Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: minor |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Comment(by elvix): https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/buildouts/plone- coredev/branches/4.0/plips/plip9327-contentlistings.txt -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9327#comment:24 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9330: Add ability to choose role when adding new site members
#9330: Add ability to choose role when adding new site members -+-- Reporter: aclark |Owner: aclark Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor|Milestone: 4.0 Component: Unknown | Resolution: Keywords: | -+-- Comment(by aclark): (In [29055]) First cut adding role selection to join form, refs #9330, wherein we protect the field by checking for manager role (so only managers get the choice) as well as populate the vocab via context/getGlobalSiteRoles and select 'Member' as the default. Next up: make it work. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9330#comment:24 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 7822 (blob support) and 9316 (unified folders) ready for review...
On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: here's a heads-up regarding my PLIPs: #7822: Make standard file content types use ZODB BLOB support #9316: Unify folder implementations both PLIPs still need upgrades and fixes wrt plone 4.0, but are in a reviewable state nevertheless. after r29056 all `plone.app.folder` and `plone.folder` tests do also pass on plone 4.0. the latter are only found when using `bin/instance test -s plone.folder` (i.e. not with `bin/test -s plone.folder`) for some reason, but i guess this doesn't matter too much atm. my guess is that this might be the case, because they're all unit tests. in any case, PLIP 9316 is ready for review now, pending the required review notes. i'll put those together tomorrow. also, some manual tests indicate that blob support is also working as expected in plone 4.0, which means that the failing tests are very likely only caused by the differences in test setup. as i said, i'll try to fix this asap, but the package itself can be reviewed (and tested ttw). review notes are also still missing here, sorry. good night, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.3rc5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9330: Add ability to choose group when adding new site members
#9330: Add ability to choose group when adding new site members -+-- Reporter: aclark |Owner: aclark Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor|Milestone: 4.0 Component: Unknown | Resolution: Keywords: | -+-- Comment(by aclark): (In [29057]) Errr, what I mean to say is, first cut adding group selection to join form, refs #9330, wherein we protect the field by checking for manager role (so only managers get the choice) as well as populate the vocab via context/portal_groups/getGroupIds and select 'AuthenticatedUsers' as the default. Next up: make it work. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9330#comment:26 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9316: Unify folder implementations
#9316: Unify folder implementations +--- Reporter: smcmahon|Owner: witsch Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: n/a |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Comment(by witsch): (In [29060]) add [http://pypi.python.org/pypi/plone.app.folder plone.app.folder] as a dependency to `Plone` update the FTI for Folder content to use the new implementation (refs #9316) -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9316#comment:23 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9316: Unify folder implementations
#9316: Unify folder implementations +--- Reporter: smcmahon|Owner: witsch Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: n/a |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Comment(by witsch): (In [29061]) add review notes for PLIP #9316 (refs #9316) -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9316#comment:24 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9285: Show blocked portlets in management interface
#9285: Show blocked portlets in management interface ---+ Reporter: igbun |Owner: igbun Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Templates/CSS | Resolution: Keywords: portlets | ---+ Comment(by igbun): This PLIP is ready for review. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9285#comment:16 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9330: Add ability to choose group when adding new site members
#9330: Add ability to choose group when adding new site members -+-- Reporter: aclark |Owner: aclark Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor|Milestone: 4.0 Component: Unknown | Resolution: Keywords: | -+-- Comment(by aclark): (In [29069]) Make input name something we can look for in the request, e.g. group.Administrators, group.Reviewers (refs #9330). -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9330#comment:28 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9330: Add ability to choose group when adding new site members
#9330: Add ability to choose group when adding new site members -+-- Reporter: aclark |Owner: aclark Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor|Milestone: 4.0 Component: Unknown | Resolution: Keywords: | -+-- Comment(by aclark): (In [29070]) W00t, first working cut, refs #9330. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9330#comment:29 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #8801: Move action icon support into actions, deprecate CMFActionIcons (was: Move action icon support into actions, remove CMFActionIcons)
#8801: Move action icon support into actions, deprecate CMFActionIcons +--- Reporter: hannosch|Owner: davisagli Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: minor |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Comment(by davisagli): Updating the title to more accurately reflect the nature of the revised PLIP -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8801#comment:21 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[Framework-Team] Status of PLIP 9315 — New th eme for Plone 4
I ran into unexpected problems today while trying to wrap up my PLIP for the review today — in short, there doesn't seem to be any (!) way to get any version of Plone running on OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) at the moment: The Unified Installers fail, buildout-based install fails, and any combination of MacPorts Python (current release, trunk from their SVN), binary Python and GCC (4.0, 4.2) versions fail while compiling parts of Zope. I spent 6 hours today with the help of messieurs Glick, Steele and McMahon today trying to make it work, but there's something very weird going on (for example, the Acquisition egg compiles properly, but after reporting that it's successfully compiled, can't be found — if you're interested, here's the output http://pastebin.com/m6df313f). (And if you know what's going on here, it would be great if you can help out, since we also need to solve this — preferrably before Snow Leopard is released, which may be as soon as end of this month.) Since I have fully migrated to Snow Leopard on my work laptop as part of testing Firefox on 10.6 (and that happened just before my vacation), I need to locate a computer that runs OS 10.5 before I can put together the running version of the theme product. Here's what I put together before I went on vacation, and that I have on my laptop at the moment: - An updated main_template that uses HTML5 (XHTML variant) that adds various structural elements like sidebar and various other cleanups. No changes to class/ID structure so far, though — so existing themes should work. (the only exception is if they do stuff like table.* in CSS, ie. depend on the tag instead of the class/ID name). HTML5 renders fine in all browsers, btw — they just don't style the new elements, which we aren't putting visual styles on anyway. - A tested, robust grid system (the same as I have shown at Plone Symposium East, and that we'll use for Plone 5) that supports both fixed and fluid widths. No tables in the layout anymore. Works in IE6 too. - A new design from Iain (screenshothttp://dev.plone.org/plone/attachment/ticket/9315/plone%204%20theme.png) that I have implemented as a static HTML version on top of the Plone markup (with the main_template changes. Note that the typography and pull-down menu will be different — closer to what you see on plone.org right now. - A new CSS that implement's Iain's layout with the changes discussed in the ticket. Still missing are things like print CSS and (if I get the time) a mobile/iPhone stylesheet using the @media selector. - CSS doesn't use base_properties, but is color-neutral except for a couple of properties (e.g. link color) that are pulled out separately to the top of the CSS file, so they are easy to override, should you need to. No DTML magic. - Three-column layout approach is intact for Plone 4, we'll move to a freer layout as part of Plone 5, so no change here either. - A theme skeleton — plonetheme.sunbursthttps://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plonetheme.sunburst/trunk/— that Denys checked in for me while I was flying across the Atlantic. Unfortunately this is just a blank skeleton still, since I can't get Plone running at the moment. What's missing was to pull these together on top of the current Plone 4 checkout, which should take 4-6 hours including basic testing to have something ready for the first review deadline. I completed the core of the work before I went on vacation, and knew that I would only have one day when returning from vacation to put together the package, so I had the entire day reserved to complete the actual theme product. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way I can get Plone running on my current laptop, so I have to find another computer to do it on. I'm going to humbly (and embarrassingly) ask for your permission to submit my PLIP for review late — I have access to a computer running OS X 10.5 tomorrow, so I will most likely have it ready by the end of Monday/Tuesday. I assume you have enough to do the first 24 hours of the PLIP submission deadline that it won't feel like you're lacking things to do in the meantime. :) It sucks, and I'm sorry — I really didn't expect this to be an issue at all. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #8801: Move action icon support into actions, deprecate CMFActionIcons
#8801: Move action icon support into actions, deprecate CMFActionIcons +--- Reporter: hannosch|Owner: davisagli Type: PLIP| Status: assigned Priority: minor |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Infrastructure | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Comment(by davisagli): (In [29081]) Notes for the action icons plip (refs #8801). This PLIP is ready for review. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8801#comment:22 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
[Framework-Team] PLIP 9321 (searchform) ready for review
Hi all, the Implementation for PLIP 9321: Reimplement the search form with an eye on usability is ready for review. Plip ticket: https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9321 (Note: The final Proposal is https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9321#comment:10) http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9321#comment:22 The Notes to the implementation are here: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/buildouts/plone-coredev/branches/4.0/plips/plip9321-searchform.txt ..Carsten ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #8802: Move our upgrade / migration infrastructure to GenericSetup
#8802: Move our upgrade / migration infrastructure to GenericSetup ---+ Reporter: hannosch |Owner: davisagli Type: PLIP | Status: assigned Priority: minor |Milestone: 4.0 Component: Upgrade/Migration | Resolution: Keywords: | ---+ Comment(by davisagli): (In [29084]) notes for the GS-based upgrades PLIP (refs #8802). This PLIP is ready for review. -- Ticket URL: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8802#comment:18 Plone http://plone.org Plone Content Management System ___ PLIP-Advisories mailing list plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
